Reports hint new CBA could happen by late June

Posted on: June 11, 2011 11:44 am

Edited on: June 11, 2011 12:11 pm

Posted by Ryan Wilson

For the first time since the lockout began 91 days ago, there appears to be genuine optimism that owners, coaches, players and fans will be able to get on with their football-loving lives, and it could happen in the next few weeks.

CBSSports.com's Mike Freeman was the first to report reasons for optimism. Way back on June 2, Freeman wrote that "There is a still a great deal of work to do ... but it appears the owners and players have made significant headway in reaching a new labor agreement, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

"One high ranking member of the former union estimated to me a new deal would be reached within two to three weeks, if not sooner. 'This is the most optimistic I’ve been in many months,' he said."

And Saturday morning, Sports Business Journal's Daniel Kaplan tweeted: "Told optimism is so high in NFL, players talks over labor deal that expectation is for a framework agreement in about two weeks."

But it gets better. The Houston Chronicle's Lance Zierlein recently blogged that "According to a couple of sources, NFL lockout could be over sooner than you think."

"After lengthy discussions with both sources, they both conveyed to me a great deal of hope that a deal would be done by July and possibly as early as late June," Zierlein wrote. "Why the sudden optimism? According to one of the sources, 'both sides are focusing on the percentage of total revenue coming in (would include the first $1 billion the owners are currently taking off the top) and if that deal gets done, the other issues will probably fall into place fairly quickly according to what I'm hearing.'"

Another source told Zierlein that "I am 100 times more hopeful than two weeks ago that a deal can get done relatively quickly."

Pro Football Weekly's Eric Edholm also hears things, all positive: "Sources have indicated to PFW that June 21, which is when the NFL owners are scheduled to meet in Chicago, might be a date to circle on the calendar. The reason for the escalated talks might indicate that the owners want to have a deal — or parameters of a deal — to vote on when they all assemble for the meeting."

That makes five different sources reporting a variation on the "things are looking really good" theme. Nothing's concrete but as we stated last night: it's a start, we'll take it.

And as momentum builds toward a resolution, this becomes less about taking sides and more about finding common ground and getting a deal done. It may have taken three months to arrive at this point, but as Breer noted Friday, it's not yet the 11th hour. If a new CBA is reached, even in principle, there could be time for free agency and training camps, and the 2011 NFL season would start as scheduled.

Sure, this fight has been framed as a battle between billionaires and millionaires. That's not entirely true, but given the economic climate, fans have little sympathy for either side. (Also not helping: the occasional attempts at public relations obfuscation.) They just want football. And it finally looks like that will happen, perhaps a lot sooner than anyone ever expected. To quote Austin Powers: "Yay, capitalism!"

Reports hint new CBA could happen by late June

Reports hint new CBA could happen by late June

We decided upon your ultimate RSS feed, suspicious a lot more did it above all typically? Special documentation the way.

Since: Dec 2, 2011

Posted on: January 8, 2012 11:13 am

Reports hint new CBA could happen by late June

I targeted instances i appreciate you this particular better passage .I just the majority finally adored television's as most basic minimal amount of that it. May possibly everyone book marked an individual's time period tremendous web presence site to take a look on the modern day facts you increase.

fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011

Posted on: January 2, 2012 11:31 pm

This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011

Posted on: January 2, 2012 11:28 pm

This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011

Posted on: January 2, 2012 10:17 pm

This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

tomlye
Since: Nov 28, 2011

Posted on: November 30, 2011 11:06 pm

This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Mar 16, 2008

Posted on: June 14, 2011 10:30 pm

How do you know all this

Since: Oct 20, 2006

Posted on: June 14, 2011 2:43 am

Reports hint new CBA could happen by late June

Draper if anyone need$ to be given up on It$ you. I'm 100% correct and totally accurate in what I've po$ted. Like it or not.

And your point i$ $illy draper. It$ the NFL that ha$ already lo$t in court and the player$ are now awaiting DAMAGE$ over WHO actually negotiated in good faith. That $hip ha$ $ailed pal. The NFL wa$ found GUILITY.

BOTTOM LINE for the 100th TIME the Player$ will get a better deal than they got when the owner$ $aid: "We'll come back to the table with a better deal when 'hell freeze$ over'"

That $IR I$ the bottom line of weather Mr $mith wa$ a good leader. Nothing More Nothing Le$$.

And how you FEEL about him or your Opinion ammount$ to a hill of bean$.

It$ about the Final Re$ult. Better I$ Better...and 100% He will have gotten "BETTER"

Since: Oct 20, 2006

Posted on: June 14, 2011 2:37 am

Reports hint new CBA could happen by late June

Balrog...you're WRONG on all account$.

Read thi$ carefully. I know what I'm talking about. 100%.

Point 1 INDEED wa$ ruled on...it$ the Rea$on Judge Nel$on told them to play ball. You are $imply wrong on that point. If you go to my tread$ you will find a break down of what the judge actually $aid in legal term$. You are $imply WRONG.

Further, the "injuction" for&nbsp;the "$TAY" wa$ argued for by the NFL. READ MY PO$T! All the detail$ were touched on. You have it broken down for you. You didn't get the fact that my 3 point$ are the 3 legal point$ on which Nel$on hung here hat.

The$e are point$ of "LAW." The Appeal$ court would have had to find that Nel$on wa$ WRONG on the LAW. They did not.

They found the NFL would be harmed more by NOT allowing them the benifit of a Lockout ( a Labor negotiation$ tool ) while the ca$e wa$ being fought later between the NFL and the Player$ on the anti-tru$t exemption later thi$ year.

Thi$ wa$ quite clear. &nbsp;

Point 2. It$ the NFL that argued that court did not have "$TANDING" take it up with the NFL Brief if it$ the wrong term. lol

And you are wrong about thi$ point too.

There are ZERO ground$ for the Appeal$ Court to determin "$HAM" ZERO. It i$ not up for debate....... "IT I$"

Moreover, the NFL could not even argue thi$ po$ition in court by "LAW." You've not $een thi$ argument from the NFL. They CANT! They negotiated that po$ition away in 93. The decertification i$ 100% REAL and Reality. Get it thru your head.

Nowthen....what the NFL "DID" try to argue wa$ that it wa$ done ILLEGALLY and early. ( AT THE WRONG TIME....not before negotiation$ )

The Judge already di$mi$$ed that premi$e in her ruling and chided the NFL for having already been found to have not negotiated in good faith ba$ed on the TV ca$e they already lo$t and of which the Player$ are now awaiting damage$.

The Appeal$ court cannot overturn point$ of "LAW" Only improper Legal point$ or error$ in the Law. That wa$ not the ca$e here.

Point 3 - The 3 judge court of appeal$ a$ I $aid eariler ruled properly. The NFL would have been harmed more. Either you don't gra$p any of thi$ at all, or you $imply want to be Right. You're not.

ONE LA$T TIME. Try to get it.

1) The Court (ON THE LAW) ruled that the NFL Player$ were 100% within their Right$ to Decertify. They then filed an Anti-Tru$T Law $uit now pending.

Thi$ i$ irrefutable.

2) That her court did indeed have "$TANDING"...."Juri$diction" if you prefere to hear the ca$e.

$he Ruled that the player$ would MO$T LIKELY PREVAIL in their $uit again$t the League and thu$ ordered the NFL to "LIFT THE LOCKOUT"

Balrog what the appeal$ court did wa$ $ay that wa$ wrong becau$e the NFL could not un$crable the egg$ of Free Agency if the lockout were lifted an in e$$ence doomed the League to a LO$$ before the Court Date.

....and that finally, any "HARM" the NFL player$ might endure could be fixed by the monitary damage$ the NFL would $uffer ( Triple ) if indeed thi$ got to court in the form of an Anti-Tru$t Law$uit the Player$ would $urely continue with if no CBA to their liking wa$ put on the table.

NOW! The NFL a$ked for an appeal of "THAT! RULING" On the Lockout.

The Court of appeal$ in deciding to keep it or lift it hung it$ hat on HARM. "WHO WOULD BE HARMED MORE".... But only WHILE the ca$e wa$ awaiting Trial and before the $ea$on wa$ $et to $tart. And Again...they took the NFL argument to heart. IT$ RIGHT! It wa$ the correct ruling.

If they had lifted the lockout before the very la$t date to $ave the $ea$on then the NFL would have had ZERO leverage to make the player$ do anything a$ a group. In effect that ruling would have made the Law $uit moot, a$ the Owner$ would have had to cave on the $pot or Ri$k lo$$ of their anti-tru$t exemption. &nbsp; THEY DONT WANT THAT! &nbsp; It would co$t them in the long run FAR FAR more than the 500,000,000 they are trying to extort fromt he player$. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

The Rea$on you $ee the two now working toward a deal i$ becau$e the NFL now know$ that NO MATTER WHAT...the Player$ are NOT going to take a HARD CAP. If it$ that.....the Player$ are of the mind they'd rather take the Free Market.

In the 2nd ruling, ba$ed on "REAL HARM" I would expect if it$ not totally political for the appeal$ court to rule in favor of the player$. The NFL operated under tho$e rule$ in 2010, and $o many would be harmed by the Lockout, it would clearly be "WRONG" to $ay the NFL would be harmed more by playing under the $ame rule$ they played under in 2010 while the two $ide$ try to work on a deal or the ruling come$ down.

Bottom line.....the Player$ WILL 100% get a better deal than what the Owner$ $aid: "We'll $it back down when Hell Freeze$ over....take it or leave it"

And know thi$....if the Player$ ever play without a CBA and no cap again, they won't go back. Up$haw $aid they never $hould again anyway. &nbsp;